User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 48

Concerning your involvement in the Paranormal Requests for arbitration

Are you an active arbitrator in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal case? If so, I have noticed that you have requested evidence concerning some of the conduct issues of specific editors on the workshop page. I wanted to inform you (encase you did not know) that all of the evidence concerning the disruptive edits of some of the users involved in the arbitration can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. Specifically the evidence presented by ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, Minderbinder and Simoes is very clear and concise proving their case. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

This image needs to be properly tagged; I would suggest {{Non-free fair use in|Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal}}. Uniform identification of non-free content is useful for the maintenance of Wikipedia, ensuring that reusers know what content is free and not, and required by the WMF's policies. Kotepho 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Hi. I am trying to get into the evolution article that it is both fact and fiction. I have 2 sources that it is and I can find more. I have started a thread on the evolution talk page. I am wondering if you can give your oppinion there. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check User

Can you run a check user on the following editors to the Child sexual abuse article? Their edits & style seem very related: User:Kinda) User:Nandaba Naota User:Voice of Britain If you would respond on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on this. I appreciate it. Since VoB is blocked, what can I do about Nandaba Naota? DPeterson^talk 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind...I see he is now blocked. DPeterson^talk 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've wiped out my user pages and discussion pages. Why?

Can you point me to the rule I am breaking. As I understand it - I am free to discuss whatever I like on my user page. I have not edited any Waldorf pages, nor have I come here as a sockpuppet. I have lived by the ruling of the ArbCom. The ruling did not extend to my user page. Please explain this action. --Pete K 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your explanation Fred. My user page is not an article page. I'm not banned from my user page. I'm not banned from discussing Waldorf either. I'm banned from Waldorf articles. If you wish to extend the ban - you should take action to do that - but this would, in my view, require action within the Wikipedia community and not some unilateral decision on your part. --Pete K 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, you are acting unilaterally here. If the ban applied to my user pages, it would have said so. --Pete K 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened on my conduct in Weiss dispute

Fred, I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in the dispute concerning the Gary Weiss article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

I tried to make myself clear before the desysoping with this, don't know what else you need to hear. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any status update? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

Is this image needed anymore? If not, would you kindly arrange the image to be deleted, since it is a fair use image that isn't used in an article. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero/Zeq

Hi, what a shame. Alithien 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night Gyr status

Howdy! It's been upwards of 24 hours since the emergency desysopping. It was predicated on a misunderstanding, and you yourself mentioned early on that the bit would be returned to the gent shortly. Definitive clarification one way or the other would probably be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under discussion. I think there is a question of general bad judgment. Fred Bauder 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the "general bad judgment" aspect, but if a mistaken emergency desysoping is the catalyst for an eventual arbcom decision, there's a 'fruit of the poison tree' situation possible. I'm not advocating process wonkery, but a normal (if abbreviated) proceeding might be worth considering. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any evidence was illegally obtained. Fred Bauder 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I wasn't trying to say it was, it was a metaphor, and apparently a failed one. Mkay, I'll rephrase. If the eventual legit decision is predicated on a mistake, then it just lends fuel to the cabal nonsense. Either way, I'd request that the arbcom include the accused at some point before making a final decision. That's what my suggestion was, apologies for any misunderstanding. BTW, don't desysop me. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a request for arbitration would need to be filed and accepted. Perhaps Night Gyr will appeal. Fred Bauder 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, your choice of words seems to answer most of the questions folks have as to which direction the discussions are heading, at least. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal what? There was a mistake about my intentions, things have been clarified, I've offered to provide any additional comment you need to resolve this. I'm getting a little annoyed that even though there doesn't seem to be anyone still calling for me to lose my bit once they understand the full situation, I haven't even gotten a status report. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long are you guys going to furrow your brows over this? :) Even now the text which Night Gyr was going to "leak" to the press (except that he wasn't, the whole thing being a misunderstanding) is publicly available on Wikipedia itself.[1] Haukur 10:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally the last person in the world who would ever complain about "due process" on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's at all a good idea to keep an "emergency desysopping" around due to unrelated concerns. If there's no emergency, I see no reason to rush. If there are legitimate concerns over someone's suitability for adminship, why not just let someone bring a case to arbcom, same as we'd normally do? Friday (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Skepticalinvestigations.org as an example of a skeptical website in RfA/Paranormal

Hi Fred. http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org is not what I would consider to be a pro-skepticism website, despite its name. Its principal focus seems to be on attacking those that it considers to be pseudoskeptics, who attack claims of the paranormal. For example, it names amongst its associates and advisors Brian Josephson, who describes himself as "slightly psychic", and Gary Schwartz, who has declared his belief in the powers of Uri Geller and John Edward, amongst others. Regards, — BillC ^talk 02:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag

Redflag refers to page content whose nature means that it requires a higher standard of WP:V/WP:RS. In this context, it means "an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof". Conversely, an abuse of redflag is "an absurd claim being treated as an extraordinary claim" for the purpose of WP:V/WP:RS.

For example, it would be redflag to say that "mainstream science accepted UFO abductions as fact", and you would be perfectly entitled to demand one, if not more, peer reviewed entry from a mainstream scientific journals in order to prove that the statement is both accurate and credible. However, it would be an abuse of redflag to demand the same standard of proof to WP:V/WP:RS the statement "Mr X says that he was abducted by an alien" which in reality requires only proof that he made such a claim, but not proof that the claim is credible.

I hope that this clears things up.

perfectblue 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Such claims are said to be "red flags". People call that section of WP:RS "Red Flag" because of the shortcut WP:REDFLAG to it. A direct link to the section may help: [2] - LuckyLouie 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Private Eye Article

Hi, just wondering why you felt it necessary to remove the Private Eye article text which I had entered in the Giovanni di Stefano talk page? I can understand about copyright infringement, but surely stating that the material was copyrighted to the magazine is enough? If you are not aware of the history of Private Eye, they are regularly themselves sued, leading some to claim that the editor Ian Hislop is the most sued man in British legal history. I highly doubt that they would attempt to sue Wikipedia for including the article; I suspect they would not really care one jot. Have you ever read the magazine in question? Sorry if I seem confrontational, I'm just a bit annoyed. Seeing the article would help editors to improve the page by dealing with what it saw as flaws in Wikipedia's coverage of di Stefano. Many thanks. Shrub of power 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, and sorry for the delayed nature of mine. It's Private Eye not Public Eye. No worries! Shrub of power 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan as Lolicon

FYI, [3], [4], and [5]. What's next? Wikipe-tan engaged in a graphic sexual act to accompany the inadequately illustrated pornography page? -Jmh123 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me

You tell me what to think [6] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria arbitration

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your pro censorship ruling

Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision#Laundry_lists_of_grievances

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thanks for all your help Fred, I do appreciate greatly! Rackabello 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usercheck

Hi Fred. With regards to this edit, do you think Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures should be updated to say all new cases should use {{usercheck}} as opposed to {{userlinks}}, or was this just a one-time change? Picaroon (Talk) 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New development regarding user Pete K

I just thought that you would like to be aware that Pete K is petitioning other users to restore all the Waldorf criticisms to his user page. I think he's trying to push the ArbCom into ruling on whole new limitations for himself. Just thought you might want to be aware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pete_K |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy modifications

Please see these edits [7] [8] and repudiate as needed. Thatcher131 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are we really going to publish an Arbitration Committee finding captioned "three layer cake with frosting"? Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter? Don't you like cake? Thatcher131 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like cake, although I generally prefer ice cream or pudding, but the heading doesn't really give a good sense of the content of the finding...... Newyorkbrad 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a more substantive comment. In recent months, a consensus has pretty much emerged that a user's removing a warning from his or her talkpage, while not optimal behavior, is not itself a policy violation or sanctionable. In the proposed FoF concern Davkal, you list several instances of "removing warning" as examples of problematic behavior. I wonder if this might have ramifications in future disputes and if this is intentional. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

diff :) , — Joie de Vivre 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigor/results

Hmmm,

Academic parapsychology isn't so much criticized for lack of rigor (where it often stands out above other research), as for not having anything to show for the research, and/or lack of repeatable results. I'm thinking of quotes from James Alcock and Randi and Hyman. I can remember such criticism, but very little criticism about lack of rigor, at least from those who bother to look into the matter.

The argument does exist, but is mostly used as a last-ditch skeptical argument- "if you did the perfect experiment, the results would go away" even though the effect magnitude, historically, doesn't vary with the tightness of the conditions. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Torre Agbar tower is great. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget....

Don't forget to add for the banning of specific users including Davkal and Martinphi to the Proposed decision area for arbitrators to vote for.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectblue

Moved here, so that other Arbitrators will be more likely to see it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page evidence discussion

Is it typical for people to discuss evidence with arbitrators on their talk pages as opposed to the arbitration pages? This is my first experience with arbitration, but it seems that the appropriate place for several of the preceding messages would actually be on arbitration pages. Am I off-base? Ante lan ^talk 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered the same thing. It seems odd for one individual to be continually lobbying his POV in private. - LuckyLouie 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering too, actually. Strange, though, how you were able to break into our private conversation. You must be really good at eavesdropping- or maybe you have a lot of high tech gear, like a little bot that flies around and has a mic that radios to a levitating sub station and then sends it on to your top secret lab down under a mountain in Antarctica. Nice of you to AGF. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF has nothing to do with this, unless you think I'm assuming bad faith from both you and Wikidudeman. Fred Bauder agrees with you, for what it's worth, but I have a hard time accepting that this type of convo should be taking place on a user talk page. It's not like everyone involved in the discussion has added Fred Bauder's talk page to their watchlist, nor should they have to to keep abreast of what's being discussed. Again, Fred Bauder said that there was nothing wrong with this; I think that in the future, though, there should be a policy change. Ante lan ^talk 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the conversation gets significant it is shared with the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 01:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan, I was responding to LuckyLouie, where he says "individual to be continually lobbying his POV in private." If I'd wanted it private, I'd have sent email. Why wouldn't I give alerts or present facts here? But I put it here where everyone should see it now anyway. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My previous response already anticipated this kind of comment, as I noted that not everyone has added his user talkpage to their watchlist. It's not a question of secrecy; it's a matter of ensuring that everyone involved can access the information in the most logical way. I stand by the assertion that ArbCom discussion belongs on an ArbCom page, not a user talk page. One could, for example, use Fred Bauder's talk page to point to a diff that they made on the ArbCom pages, which would let you notify him directly while putting the material in its most accessible place. Ante lan ^talk 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

I want to post this again just encase you missed it. Please don't forget to add [[9]] and [[10]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[11]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [[12]] and [[13]]. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1RR per week

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

I find the edits, style, and SPA focus on the Child sexual abuse of 00a00a0aa remarkablly similiar to that of User:Voice_of_Britain, who is banned. Can you run a checkuser to see if these are the same? If you can respond to my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 00:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simoes

I'd like to draw you attention to this:

Somehow I still feel like I'm being called "the scum of the universe." And not to make a point too bluntly, but your mom's a fucking bitch. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff's Notes version: People were upset about Perfectblue's "scum of the universe" comments. Martinphi maintained that it was acceptable because it was a cultural artifact. Thus, hypothesis: offensive things aren't offensive if they're cultural puns. Simoes then tested that hypothesis with the statement, "your mom's a fucking bitch," linked to the South Park page. That is a popular phrase from the TV show. Apologies for draining the humor from the situation to draw parallels. Ante lan ^talk 05:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan, if that weren't what it is, I'd not have had to think twice about calling it what it is on wiki. Difference: Perfectblue said she is defending paranormal articles from the scum of the universe. Originally linked to the What is a troll page. No indication she's talking about anyone other than trolls. If anyone includes themselves in that, that's their problem.

Simoes: Said my mother was a fucking bitch, and linked it to South Park.

Interesting you don't see how that's different. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, she reverted Fred Bauder's removal of from the scum of the universe. [14] Was that good faith editing? Ante lan ^talk 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which he didn't discuss with her- so far as I know. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're moving the ArbCom discussion here

Martinphi, I know there have been some heated arguments, but I applaud you for the WikiProject that you created: ReallyRational_Skepticism. Hilarious! Ante lan ^talk 05:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (= And in case you're wondering what it means, it says, in my usual sarcastic way, that I don't think that the members of the RationalSkepticism project, taken as a whole and sometimes as individuals, are rational. As I've said before. But you notice, I'm not calling your mom personally a fucking bitch. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... you didn't really mean that in a nice way, did you, and not just to alert Bauder in the hopes of getting me in trouble??? Maybe you did, looking again at how you put it. If so, thanks- for real (: Wait a minute, you wouldn't have put it here if..... Nevermind. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi, I really do think it's funny. I don't think there's anything wrong with creating a parody wikiproject. Yours is in good taste. Ante lan ^talk 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really mean it? Cool. I thought you were just trying to get me in trouble, same as poor Perfectblue. Glad you liked it (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serves me right for being such a sarcastic SOB doesn't it? I think others are being sarcastic :~D Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.K. Rowling

I'm sure this is a massive breach of the arbitration protocol so I'll apologize in advance but things are now getting desperate. As I'm sure you'll have seen from the current state of this arbitration request, your colleagues on the committee seem to have no interest in intervening. While that may be the correct decision in this case I am deeply worried about the message that this sends to Libertycookies and editors like him. He has basically claimed a moral victory in this case and is now reinserting all his unsupported research with impunity. I can't understand how so many independent editors and admins can agree that his edits are completely unsupported OR and yet nothing happens? Anyway, I can't emphasize enough the damage this guy is doing to the various Harry Potter articles he's editing least of all because his actions and the result of the case have caused several key editors, notably Serendipodous, to abandon parts or all of the Harry Potter WikiProject. I could really use your help/advice there's got to be some way to salvage this situation and the articles in question? Thanks in advance. AulaTPN 09:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that, on the advice of T-dot, Serendipodous has opened a request for mediation. I'd still appreciate your thoughts. AulaTPN 11:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at User:Pete K

An anonymous user is restoring old content at User:Pete K Hgilbert 10:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to remove old content and fully protected for 1 week. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user also restoring old content at User:Pete_K/Steiner_Quotes and User:Pete_K/Biodynamics. he is banned from them and reminded many times but User:Pete_K keeps debating on Waldorf related articles on talk pages.[15] [16] [17] Venado 15:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other userpage subpages have been reverted an protected, the comments by Pete K are from a few days ago, so pointless blocking now. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other side to the Pete K situation

Fred, you have bravely waded into the unholy quagmire that is the Waldorf Education family of articles and in particular the behavior of Pete K. As you have rightly pointed out Pete K has been 'shouty', pedantic, and shown a great deal of incivility towards a handful of other users. Consequently he has been banned from editing any Waldorf/Steiner article, the talk pages of any editor contributing to to Waldorf/Steiner articles, and now, in what as far as I know is a first for wikipedia, his own talk page.

Meanwhile the articles in question have been comprehensively owned by a cabal of single-issue editors engaged in a scientology-style campaign of propaganda both within and outwith wikipedia. Take a look through the history of the articles in question and then take a look at the user contributions of the editors

Pete K, for all his faults, at least had the motivation to call this cabal of editors on their POV pushing. And a deeper reading of the situation reveals that most of his incivility is a reaction to his not entirely unjustified feeling that he has been treated unfairly. He has been a victim of the most personal bullying I have ever seen on wikipedia, including jibes relating to his close family.

In all the noise that has surrounded these issues, Pete K is now being commonly seen by outsiders as somebody who is on an unreasonable 'Jihad' purely because of the constant character assassination he is a victim of. In fact he is a critical skeptic, which is something entirely different.

Long story short: be careful about helping others destroy Pete K. Sometimes we need unpleasant pedants to help maintain POV balance.--Fergie 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the articles, and the behavior of others, deserve examination. However, Pete K's participation is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, so be aware that by singling out Pete K, you are tacitly condoning the state of the articles and the behaviour of others--Fergie 06:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that what brought Pete to these articles in the first place - he knew long before editing here that the handful of editors Fergie refers to were "owning" those articles and using wikipedia to proselytize - but what drew his attention originally was learning that it was being said here that he did NOT HAVE CUSTODY OF HIS CHILDREN. This was never true - nothing remotely close to this was ever true for 5 minutes. These are lies these people spread - these are cult tactics, and they do operate much like scientology.

You also have to understand that Pete K has three children who are the very long time victims of mistreatment in a Waldorf school from which he is legally unable to remove them. Pete K is probably the most dedicated father on the planet. (Yes, *he* is the primary caretaker of these children.) I recognize as do most others that Pete loses his temper at which point the rules here don't interest him and he says some rude and loud things. I recognize this sort of thing has to be unacceptable on wikipedia and admins have to have some way to moderate it. Banning *one* side of the dispute is not the answer - it leaves wikipedia a soapbox for religious proselytizing. Certain people remain phonily polite and controlled and they are snakes. Any impartial observer can detect the very faintly reserved glee that Pete K's banning causes his antagonists as they see their main impediment to controlling the Steiner articles removed. They have pushed his buttons in every way they know how, much of it "off-wiki" - please keep in mind Fred that they STARTED, they came out of the starting blocks here by describing him as a man who had lost custody of his children. There has been no recourse for him - none. There was never any reprimand for that - it was ignored in the arbitration, as was "Thebee's" "hate group" accusations. They pressed on antagonizing Pete from there. Since Pete's removal the articles in question have reverted to brochures for Waldorf education and the various other projects of anthroposophy, a small religious sect. This was their long-term plan for managing their PR at wikipedia. They might not have realized how persistent Pete would be, but they saw a way to get him removed.DianaW 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note: Both Diana W - characterized by admin Durova as histrionic - and Wikipedia can probably be sued for libel for publishing parts of what she writes above. Thebee 23:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job proving my point - you aim to have Pete and/or me or anyone who supports our views banned here, any way you can arrange it. You literally follow us around trying to make sure you catch anything we've said that you can add to one of your "lists" on us. And no, nothing I wrote can get me or anybody else "sued for libel" since everything that's happened to Pete's kids has been documented in court - exactly what has happened to them is documented, Bee, perhaps you're unaware of this - and as to what's been said on wikipedia, I'm afraid that is all just a few mouse clicks away, for posterity (all your "hate group" accusations, for instance, and Hgilbert's blatant scandal mongering about Pete's supposedly not having custody of his children - I just poked around to be sure - those pages were amended at one point by substituting XXX's for the names, but y'all missed some places, and even if you hadn't, it's there in earlier versions of the page, of course. So keep talking fast if you like, but ALL of it is documented, and no one need fear being "sued for libel."DianaW 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few days after Pete arrived to Wikipedia in August last year, probably called here by you, Hgilbert, that you describe as a "phonily polite and controlled" "snake", explicitly apologized to Pete for the erroneous description and explained the background for it.

Pete,

I realize that I haven't personally apologized for bringing your personal situation into the PLANS debate, and for accidentally misrepresenting this on top of this. I had been told that your child was in the Waldorf school against your wishes, and drew what I now know to be the false conclusion that you did not have custody. I apologize for the misrepresentation, and for naming you at all (in response to Diana's demand for names).

Deep and heartfelt apologies. I feel we are working slowly toward a mutual understanding around editing, though many battles surely lie ahead, and hope we can engage with ever increasing mutual respect and civility. Hgilbert 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova also wrote on Jan 15: "Turning up the heat by mentioning libel and police comes perilously close to a legal threat, which can and does get users sitebanned very quickly . . . The standard response to legal threats is to siteban the user immediately." Hmm - let's see if you get site-banned now. Did Durova really call me "histrionic"? I don't recall that, and looking around quickly can't find such a comment from her. It sounds like a personal attack, and Durova doesn't really do that. She lost patience with me, and I was disappointed that she didn't maintain her usual high standards of making flawless good sense - she accused me of things she couldn't show with diffs, and rather than admit that, she just stopped talking to me. It was disappointing but somewhat understandable - and as usual, it was instigated by YOU (with your false accusations that I had brought on a sock puppet - later shown by checkuser to be untrue). But I really don't believe Durova ever insulted me personally, and so once again you're kinda putting your foot in it don't you think?DianaW 13:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]